Remove a finished terminal

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and does not meet it. It does not say whether removal only detaches the list entry or also tears down the underlying process, whether the operation is reversible, whether the terminal must be in a finished state, or what happens on failure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though its terseness is part of why behavioral gaps remain.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out the failure semantics, the precondition implied by "finished", and any hint of the result. An agent knows what it removes but not what the call actually does.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the single `terminal` parameter with concrete formats (`t7`, a name, `machine/t7`). The description adds no format or resolution detail beyond what the schema supplies, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Remove a finished terminal from the list"), and "from the list" implicitly separates it from process-killing siblings like herdr_kill and herdr_interrupt. Sibling differentiation is only implied, though — it never names the alternatives it is not.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The adjective "finished" hints at a precondition but the description never states what to do if the terminal is still running, nor steers the agent to herdr_kill/herdr_interrupt in that case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.